JurisAtlas

HomeBar Review2015Labor LawQuestion XXII

Question XXII

2015 Bar · Labor Law · 2 sub-questions

XXII. Mario comes from a family of coffee bean growers. Deciding to incorporate his fledgling coffee venture, he invites his best friend, Carlo, to join him. Carlo is hesitant because he does not have money to invest but Mario suggests a scheme where Carlo can be the Chief Marketing Agent of the company, earning a salary and commissions. Carlo agrees and the venture is formed. After one year, the business is so successful that they were able to declare dividends. Mario is so happy with Carlo's work that he assigns 100 shares of stock to Carlo as part of the latter's bonus. Much later on, it is discovered that Carlo had engaged in unethical conduct which caused embarrassment to the company. Mario is forced to terminate Carlo but he does so without giving Carlo the opportunity to explain. Carlo filed a case against Mario and the company for illegal dismissal. Mario objected on the ground that the Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction over the case as it would properly be considered as an intra-corporate controversy cognizable by the RTC. Further, Mario claimed that because Carlo's dismissal was a corporate act, he cannot be held personally liable.
(a)(a) As the Labor Arbiter assigned to this case, how would you resolve the jurisdiction question. (3%)
(b)(b) What is the rule on personal liability of corporate officers for a corporate act declared to be unlawful? (2%) ---ooo0ooo---

Model answer · ALAC

Answer — Legal basis — Application — Conclusion.

AI-drafted in ALAC form and AI-verified against landmark authorities — refined with every round of verification.

Sign in free to read Question I of every Labor Law year — subscribe to unlock all model answers & authorities.

Sign in or register — it's freeHave an access code? Redeem it →